Build a modern battleship

[Scott Kenny]

Ok? You completely avoided the question.

He said that one V-22 can carry 5 days of food, what more do you need?

Plus, it's typical for an attack sub or carrier group to make a port call about every 3 weeks even when they are loaded with 6 months of canned and dry food, to keep fresh fruit and the occasional ice cream delivery of real hardpack instead of autodog soft serve.

Ideally the same work can be done by a medium craft unless the sea states are not cooperating. But they could handle substantially more per transit and travel between ships without coming from land.

Disagree here, better to land the supplies on the helo deck where they can be directly hauled into the ship instead of having to tie a small boat alongside and lift the supplies up and into the ship.

 

[johnpjones1775]

It would take 2 flights per week at more than 500 miles from land, and they would be on the flight deck for 30 minutes to unload pallets and refuel.

So a flight can supply food for 5 days but some how 2 flights are supposed to supply the ship for 14 days? That math ain’t mathing.

Where’d you get that 30 minutes from exactly? I remember vertreps from a Seahawk taking about 20 minutes from lift off from the supply ship along side, to clearing the flight deck.
And you want me to believe significantly more supplies can be offloaded, cleared, and the aircraft refueled for its return trip in 30 minutes?

 

[johnpjones1775]

He said that one V-22 can carry 5 days of food, what more do you need?

Plus, it's typical for an attack sub or carrier group to make a port call about every 3 weeks even when they are loaded with 6 months of canned and dry food, to keep fresh fruit and the occasional ice cream delivery of real hardpack instead of autodog soft serve.



Disagree here, better to land the supplies on the helo deck where they can be directly hauled into the ship instead of having to tie a small boat alongside and lift the supplies up and into the ship.

That doesn’t tell me how long it takes.

 

[Not James Stockdale]

So a flight can supply food for 5 days but some how 2 flights are supposed to supply the ship for 14 days? That math ain’t mathing.

Do you not know how long a week is?

And you want me to believe significantly more supplies can be offloaded, cleared, and the aircraft refueled for its return trip in 30 minutes?

30 minutes is a very generous estimate.

 

[MadRat]

Multi-Domain Artillery Cannon System (MDACS) at 155 mm only has a 15 pound HVP suitable for anti-air use. The HVP of a 5 inch (127 mm) would be smaller.

 

[Dilandu]

Multi-Domain Artillery Cannon System (MDACS) at 155 mm only has a 15 pound HVP suitable for anti-air use. The HVP of a 5 inch (127 mm) would be smaller.

Hm! Would be a good idea for naval cannon!

 

[insidersource]

BBGN could have similar unsupplied endurance to a nuke sub, and after that food can be flown in on V-22.

That would definitely be the case. Many members have complained that BBGN doesn't have enough VLS cells relative to it's large displacement. To increase unsupplied endurance requires addition storage. Food supply is just one of many things that need to increased.

 

[FighterJock]

We currently do not know how many VLS cells the BBGN will have so at this stage it will be almost imposible to guess the total quantity of VLS cells.

 

[Not James Stockdale]

Considering the fact that the Kirovs carry 20 7-ton AShMs and 96 Tomahawk-sized SAMs at 25,000 tons, I don't think 12 7-ton CPS missile and 128 Mk 41 VLS cells for a 35,000 ton American ship is that terrible.

 

[johnpjones1775]

Do you not know how long a week is?


30 minutes is a very generous estimate.

A week is 7 days meaning 2 weeks is 14 days. So please explain how two flights with 5 days of supplies is going to supply the ship for 2 weeks.

 

[Forest Green]

Considering the fact that the Kirovs carry 20 7-ton AShMs and 96 Tomahawk-sized SAMs at 25,000 tons, I don't think 12 7-ton CPS missile and 128 Mk 41 VLS cells for a 35,000 ton American ship is that terrible.

It's 36 7-ton CPS though appartently. It's 12xVPMs with 3 CPS each. Still not a problem though.

 

[Not James Stockdale]

A week is 7 days meaning 2 weeks is 14 days. So please explain how two flights with 5 days of supplies is going to supply the ship for 2 weeks.

What does 2 flights per week mean in your mind?

It would take 2 flights per week at more than 500 miles from land, and they would be on the flight deck for 30 minutes to unload pallets and refuel.

This is exactly what I said.

It's 36 7-ton CPS though appartently. It's 12xVPMs with 3 CPS each. Still not a problem though.

Was there confirmation of this? I've always hoped it was the case, but some of the Navy press releases sound like it only has 12 CPS missiles, not 12 APMs.

 

[Forest Green]

Was there confirmation of this? I've always hoped it was the case, but some of the Navy press releases sound like it only has 12 CPS missiles, not 12 APMs.

I believe it was stated on this thread somewhere. At present I think the VPM is literally the only facility for launching CPS at sea, I could be wrong though.

 

[DWG]

That would definitely be the case. Many members have complained that BBGN doesn't have enough VLS cells relative to it's large displacement. To increase unsupplied endurance requires addition storage. Food supply is just one of many things that need to increased.

So is it going to be sailing around on its own? Because otherwise it's just as tied to ports and logistics as any other task group.

 

[In_A_Dream]

Don't underestimate the future role of unmanned air & surface vehicles providing logistical support for vessels underway.

 

[insidersource]

So is it going to be sailing around on its own? Because otherwise it's just as tied to ports and logistics as any other task group.

Nuclear carriers, nuclear subs, nuclear battleships. The whole group won't be tied to any ports. All manned ships are nuclear surrounded by unmanned assets.

I do expect a few battleships to also roam by themselves as a show of force. This is the first large surface ship with infinite range that does not require escorts. There is no precedence so I can't provide proof. I call the role "constant global presence".

I expect a few battleships to be constantly circumnavigating the globe at full speed passing through the waters of every ally, dictator and disputed waterway. It is much much cheaper than sailing around a carrier battle group. A history book on empires makes me think this is an obvious role.

Sailing around a pair of Arleigh-burkes at half the speed with a supply ship in tow and multiple port stops is not even remotely close to the show of force of this battleship.

Don't underestimate the future role of unmanned air & surface vehicles providing logistical support for vessels underway.

The battleship would be designed around the future of unmanned systems. Like how the air forces have cheap loyal wingman drones protecting the super expensive manned fighters.

We already have unmanned submarines that are battery powered and they attach to the hull of the manned vessel. To recharge their battery they run their prop as a generator while attached to the manned ship. The extra drag would guzzle fuel of an Arleigh-burke destroyer but a nuclear ship it is no issue.

The plan is very obvious. A high end manned nuclear ship surrounded by unmanned assets.

I will bring up the elephant in the room. The members most outspoken against this battleship have posted previous anti-trump posts. I do not want to derail the thread by attacking the bias of members by quoting their bias. The biggest mistake was calling it the Trump class. You instantly turn half of the US population against the idea no matter how good it is.

This should have been called the Dreadnought class battleship. The first two ships laid down could have been the USS Dreadnought and USS Trump.

 

[johnpjones1775]

Nuclear carriers, nuclear subs, nuclear battleships. The whole group won't be tied to any ports. All manned ships are nuclear surrounded by unmanned assets.

I do expect a few battleships to also roam by themselves as a show of force. This is the first large surface ship with infinite range that does not require escorts. There is no precedence so I can't provide proof. I call the role "constant global presence".

I expect a few battleships to be constantly circumnavigating the globe at full speed passing through the waters of every ally, dictator and disputed waterway. It is much much cheaper than sailing around a carrier battle group. A history book on empires makes me think this is an obvious role.

Sailing around a pair of Arleigh-burkes at half the speed with a supply ship in tow and multiple port stops is not even remotely close to the show of force of this battleship.


The battleship would be designed around the future of unmanned systems. Like how the air forces have cheap loyal wingman drones protecting the super expensive manned fighters.

We already have unmanned submarines that are battery powered and they attach to the hull of the manned vessel. To recharge their battery they run their prop as a generator while attached to the manned ship. The extra drag would guzzle fuel of an Arleigh-burke destroyer but a nuclear ship it is no issue.

The plan is very obvious. A high end manned nuclear ship surrounded by unmanned assets.

I will bring up the elephant in the room. The members most outspoken against this battleship have posted previous anti-trump posts. I do not want to derail the thread by attacking the bias of members by quoting their bias. The biggest mistake was calling it the Trump class. You instantly turn half of the US population against the idea no matter how good it is.

This should have been called the Dreadnought class battleship. The first two ships laid down could have been the USS Dreadnought and USS Trump.

Fuck him, but we do need a new LARGE combatant, I don’t believe this project is the right way to go about it.

Especially since it’s been nearly a century, since we have built a surface combatant any where near this size.
find a way to speed up HII’s BMD ship to around 28 knots and that’s our ‘battleship.’

Idk if nuclear power would get a San Antonio class hull to that speed or not.

Also no ship of the class should have ever been proposed to be named after him while he was alive let alone while he was in office.

That just proves all the rumors going back to his first administration where he can’t pay attention to or care about anything that isn’t focused on him.(having to work his name all over intelligence briefings, his Iran briefings being action movie reels of explosions, etc.)

 

[Desertfox]

This ship has almost zero ASW capability. It can't be sailing around everywhere unescorted. The Russian Poseidons are nuclear powered and 100kts.

A San Antonio based BMD/C2 (even dedicated ASW variant) ships makes sense. This does not.

 

[Scott Kenny]

Especially since it’s been nearly a century, since we have built a surface combatant any where near this size.
find a way to speed up HII’s BMD ship to around 28 knots and that’s our ‘battleship.’

Idk if nuclear power would get a San Antonio class hull to that speed or not.

You're not getting a San Antonio class hull to 28 or 30 knots without doubling the installed horsepower. Just the wrong hull form for it, Length:Beam ratio is too low.

Alaska or Iowa hull form would absolutely work. Maybe North Carolina-class BB hull form (729ft/222m long, 109ft/30m beam, 35ft/10.8m draft) would work, though the NorCals were 28kt battleships not 32kt. 37,000tons standard, 121khp.

Alaska hull is ~240m waterline length, 28m beam, and ~9m draft on 30,000tons standard. 150khp gets you 33 knots. L:B of 8.57
And the mighty Iowa hull is ~262m waterline length, 30m beam, 11.3-11.5m draft on 49ktons standard. 212khp gets you 33 knots. L:B of 8.73

And finally what I think the BBG is going to end up as:
~700ft/213m waterline, 77ft/23.5m beam, 22ft/6.7m draft on ~18,000tons standard/22ktons full load. 120khp gets you 33kts. L:B of 9 (a little high, could add some beam for better seakeeping. 25m/82.5ft beam would make an L:B of 8.53)

 

[shin_getter]

With thousands of kilometer range of CPS class weapons, why does one need to sail around all over the place at speed?

To show the flag? I guess the idea of teh invulnerable ship that does ramming is quite correct after all, nothing less than sheer physical range is too much for monkey brains to register as impressive.

 

[johnpjones1775]

With thousands of kilometer range of CPS class weapons, why does one need to sail around all over the place at speed?

To show the flag? I guess the idea of teh invulnerable ship that does ramming is quite correct after all, nothing less than sheer physical range is too much for monkey brains to register as impressive.

Because the world is significantly bigger than 2k miles, and slow ships can’t respond to crises quickly.
Because not all missions will be launch CPS.

 

[shin_getter]

Because the world is significantly bigger than 2k miles, and slow ships can’t respond to crises quickly.
Because not all missions will be launch CPS.

If real speed is needed, put it on a missile. Fund orbital drop troops or something. Ships necessarily defines a specific time line and it is fighting physics to escape it.

Not sure if political system have OODA loops that respond to crisis quickly even if physical assets do. How long does it take for govt to sort out some trivial thing again?

 

[Scott Kenny]

With thousands of kilometer range of CPS class weapons, why does one need to sail around all over the place at speed?

If it accompanies a carrier, it has to be able to do 30+ knots.

 

[insidersource]

This ship has almost zero ASW capability. It can't be sailing around everywhere unescorted. The Russian Poseidons are nuclear powered and 100kts.

The battleship would act as a mothership for its own unmanned escorts. They deploy when the threat environment is high. During peace time the battleship is just providing show of force so no escorts needed.

Idk if nuclear power would get a San Antonio class hull to that speed or not.

It would easily. The single A1B reactor has 5 times the horsepower of the San Antonio engines.

You're not getting a San Antonio class hull to 28 or 30 knots without doubling the installed horsepower. Just the wrong hull form for it, Length:Beam ratio is too low.

A 50 metre stretch of the San Antonio provides a perfect length to beam ratio and also hits the 40,000 ton displacement target. A single A1B reactor provides 5 times the horsepower. Enough to hit 30 knots.

The large well dock that is in the San Antonio design provides the open space needed to fit the A1B reactor and 200 VLS cells. The San Antonio class diesel engines would be changed to 150MW of electric motors and backup generators. Being IEP the A1B reactor doesn't need to send steam to the prop shafts. It just needs electricity cables which makes it easier to place the reactor in an existing design.

As the San Antonio class is a fairly modern design with the correct width and superstructure it is the obvious choice.

A San Antonio based BMD/C2 (even dedicated ASW variant) ships makes sense. This does not.

You are effectively getting what you want just with a nuclear reactor.

 

[JS23]

I will bring up the elephant in the room. The members most outspoken against this battleship have posted previous anti-trump posts. I do not want to derail the thread by attacking the bias of members by quoting their bias. The biggest mistake was calling it the Trump class. You instantly turn half of the US population against the idea no matter how good it is.

Trump likes to put his name on a lot of things, whether people like them or not--and while some of his supporters still believe in his genius, I don't think his detractors think for a second that Trump had meaningful input to this design beyond approving it and putting the meme of himself on the back. People are still tentatively excited about the F-47, for instance, with the most hesitancy about that coming from Boeing's recent track record.

Yet the reaction across the board, from professional naval analysts to armchair enthusiasts, has mostly ranged from skeptical at best to outright flabbergasted. I think if they thought it was a good idea and just didn't like Trump, they'd say it's a good thing that made it to approval despite him (see also: marijuana being reclassified to Schedule III).

Everyone's got their opinions on the Large Surface Combatant question, but I don't think we can blame the skepticism entirely on the current administration.

 

[DJK]

There seems to be a "bigger is better" culture within the navy that has been taken to the extreme, along with a tendency to ignore inconvenient vulnerabilities. The FF(X) seems to be a result of marginalising the "small" combatants.

 

[insidersource]

If I was starting today I would cancel the battleship in its current form but keep FF(X) as a cheap low end ship. I think the current battleship has to be large due to being forced to use the aircraft carrier sized reactor. This would be solved by developing a small cleansheet reactor that has high electricity generator.

I would then do a 3 ship family with different lengths but in a larger size range with 25 metre beam.

12,000 ton 150 metre destroyer
18,000 ton 200 metre cruiser
24,000 ton 250 metre battlecruiser

All ships would have a single cleansheet design 50 MW microreactor. It would reuse most of the Zumwalt propulsion system with the electric motors on the props with a few MT30 gas turbine generators. The microreactor then gives, 20, 18 and 16 knot cruising speeds for destroyer, cruiser and battlecruiser. With the gas turbines running it would give 32, 30 and 28 knot top speeds for each size. The same huge radar and basic systems shared in all ships.

The destroyer gets enough VLS cells to provide BMD and basic anti-ship. The 50 metre plug in the cruiser provides additional crew space for command and control and 100 additional VLS cells for a light surface strike capability. The 50 metre plug for the battle cruiser is entirely VLS cells. 500+ cells to provide 5 times the strike power of an Arleight burke at less than 3 times the displacement.

 

[Forest Green]

With thousands of kilometer range of CPS class weapons, why does one need to sail around all over the place at speed?

To show the flag? I guess the idea of teh invulnerable ship that does ramming is quite correct after all, nothing less than sheer physical range is too much for monkey brains to register as impressive.

Possibly to keep up with carriers and provide cover against AShBMs/AShHW, which on-board fighters and SSNs cannot. It also signals the presence of long-range hypersonic strike capability, which subs hidden underwater don't - diplomacy/deterrence etc.

 

[shin_getter]

Possibly to keep up with carriers and provide cover against AShBMs/AShHW, which on-board fighters and SSNs cannot. It also signals the presence of long-range hypersonic strike capability, which subs hidden underwater don't - diplomacy/deterrence etc.

Subs can just use delayed float upward munitions/pods to demonstrate their presence without being too revealing of their position. If the role is surface attack with extremely long range munitions, maybe non-nuclear subs/UUV or towed underwater pods can do, since mobility is not needed.

If CPS can't be reliably intercepted, heavy surface ships are obviously bad in peer fights
If CPS can be intercepted, figuring out optimal firing geometry to ensure success is needed and subs that moves to the right spot with a large ammo load or independent surface taskforce (with different positioning requirement than carrier ops) is the right play.

A frankly, does carrier tactical mobility matter when munitions move so fast the moving outside of sensor search area is impractical?

 

[MadRat]

What build ratios? How many per fleet?

Each fleet has a bit different situation.

 

[spikedpsycho]

The Battleship is obsolete. Yes, Concept of the warship in general is reaching point of functional irrelevance. Admirals entrenched in Bureaucracy refuse to address changes in contemporary warfare are stuck in the hierarchy role of tonnage/ship types. But the Rise in Drones & All Branches of the military adopting platforms for missiles that can be launched from trucks, coastal batteries, and Airplanes.
The Destroyer is only vessel large enough grant use in conventional navies because demand for missiles large enough equate ballistic missile defense.
Obsolete unless addresses changes to contemporary battlefields; Long live the frigate. Devoting large sophisticated ships with 250-350 crewmen for simple missions like drug countermeasures, sub screening, patrol and interdiction/search and rescue; is a tremendous waste of resources better reserved for Corvettes/Frigates.

And modifying a Barge or derrick to be an "Arsenal ship" carrying hundreds of missiles without incorporating warfare/defense electronics necessary systems it needs to function long term as a warship is dumb, more so outfitting a ship to function with all systems like a warship makes the barge no more/less expensive than building a warship.

Bureaucracy obssessed Navy admirals refuse address modernization of warfare, let alone conceptualization of new ideas that threaten their status quo. But Events in last 30 odd years have revealed glaring weakness contemporary full scale fighting forces at sea.

The future of Naval warfare is sketchy but predictable patterns emerge; but Fleets of ships in formation are incredibly risky idea. The Ukraine war revealed a nation with seemingly small or no real navy can fight against and defeat or deter Big navies. After sinking of the Moskva; Russia withdrew it's naval assets greater distance. Russia was forced attack Ukraine at standoff distances further away using expensive super-hyper sonic missiles which at prices greater than Tomahawk, Not easily replaced and their performace was sketchy with many being intercepted, failing or simply avoided.

"Stealth" ship concepts may fool radar, but they only work against surface horizon, The advent of aircraft with radar's aiming DOWN mitigates lot tactical design that compromise storage and practicality. they are still useful...but growing concern of Optical sensor technology means radar mitigating ship design. Hypersonic weapons may pose genuine threat, but they are still immature technology with questionable track records. And in Ukraine war, were being intercepted/shot down by weapons half their speed. Laser weapons are still fraudulent and dumb weapons, Namely their massive power consumption and accuracy in adverse weather combined with their slow burn times. Since retirement of last battleships; shore bombardment has become a deadlock issue US Navy worked on 30+ years with no definitive solutions, Just billions of dollars of weapons useless to soldiers ashore. Nuclear power for navies was pushed for infinite range, high power, but only BIG navies can afford them and their economies of scale did not emerge to address diminishing cost of operation. There is One reactor technology however that may counter this issue, thus allow Navies to adopt Low cost effective nuclear power plants with minimal labor/crew requirements for small ships to adopt near infinite range; more so acclimate to high power demands contemporary radar/sensor platforms need.

The Rise of the anti-ship missile has never been seriously addressed and navies foolishly believe a few CIWS guns can effectively defend a ship at sea. Navies may have to return to gunned platforms with human eyes and gunners that cannot be electronically fooled. A frigate needs something more akin 10+ .50 caliber machine guns, preferably high rates of fire. And possibly high caliber cannons.

Low cost naval strategy may not even involve ships for one participant. Australia, whose military is not bogged down by bureaucratic dogma, their Navy/air force flies F18s and successfully integrated German anti ship missiles. Flown from airbases as much as 100 miles inland, deploy their payloads and flee they don't even need ships. Taiwan has since acquired over 300 Harpoons. The entire 1982 Falkland's naval war revolved around both sides the employment of just five Exocet anti-ship missiles, which devastated the British fleet when fired from common jet aircraft. Many Argentine jets were later lost trying to drop dumb bombs on ships WWII Style. Had Argentina acquired 100 Exocets instead of buying a cruiser; they'd probably have won. USS Stark was attacked and almost sunk by merely 2 exocet missiles. What was assumed attack by fighters gaugee and based on intelligence reports was actually a modified private jet. A Boeing 777 can be modified into a bomber. It's internal fuselage can be modified with revolver racks to carry cruise missiles. With ranges over 7,000 nautical miles plane can take off from airbases or civilian runways hundreds miles inland, launch missiles with standoff ranges exceeding 500 miles. Unlike the military, civilian aviation upgrades its engines every few years, military planes are literally left in the dust in terms economy. Modified passenger jets are ideal, as an entire civilian parts distribution and servicing mechanics already exist to fix them. Navies may try subvert airspace from civilian airliners but that just gives away their position. Ships no longer enjoy safety of ports because civilization sprawls up around it. Webcam, cellphones and internet. Navies are outnumbered 100 to 1 by global fishing and commercial shipping fleets. Photos and geotagging means images of ships can be shared in real time. Just look at all subreddits Warship Porn

 

[shin_getter]

also the previously mentioned defence against AShBMs/AShHWs attacking carriers. Yes carrier mobility matters.

What with a 100,000ton vehicle, dodge hypervelocity highly agile attack missiles that itself have to evade interceptors pulling 100+Gs?

As for dodging sensors, sensors improvements gets a plot on the log graph (translate to area), while ship signature and mobility do not improve.

 

[Forest Green]

What with a 100,000ton vehicle, dodge hypervelocity highly agile attack missiles that itself have to evade interceptors pulling 100+Gs?

As for dodging sensors, sensors improvements gets a plot on the log graph (translate to area), while ship signature and mobility do not improve.

I think the idea is that the BBG(X) fires the interceptors from the same area as the actual target, rather than racing a carrier to the theatre on its own to be a sitting duck to hypersonic/BM attack.

 

[Scott Kenny]

The future of Naval warfare is sketchy but predictable patterns emerge; but Fleets of ships in formation are incredibly risky idea.

Concur, the various US v China wargames have seen any grouping of ships getting mugged by AShBMs and hypersonics, which means that lone ships must have enough firepower to protect themselves and a logistics ship.

Nuclear power for navies was pushed for infinite range, high power, but only BIG navies can afford them and their economies of scale did not emerge to address diminishing cost of operation. There is One reactor technology however that may counter this issue, thus allow Navies to adopt Low cost effective nuclear power plants with minimal labor/crew requirements for small ships to adopt near infinite range; more so acclimate to high power demands contemporary radar/sensor platforms need.

The S5W nuclear plant was made in the hundreds for subs, and it meets most of the SMR definitions. Only makes about 20MWe if you bolt the main engines to electrical generators (15,000hp plus whatever the ship service TGs made)

And I still struggle to see how any Navy is going to accept a virtually unmanned reactor for service.

The Rise of the anti-ship missile has never been seriously addressed and navies foolishly believe a few CIWS guns can effectively defend a ship at sea.

The USN first faced swarms of antiship missiles in WW2. We called them Kamikazes, and the guidance system for those missiles was a person willing to trade his life for the life of an entire ship. What the USN learned in WW2 was that 20mm and 40mm AA guns would not stop a Kamikaze in the terminal dive, they needed AA guns that would take down the kamikaze before it could kinematically reach the ship. Hence the 3"/50 automatics replacing Bofors 40mm. Two twin 3" mounts would replace 3 quad Bofors.

And yes, the CIWS systems work well enough when there are only a couple of leakers past all the layers of SAMs and even fighters in the Outer Air Battle.

Fighters are operating 200+nmi away from the carrier group, with the goal of shooting down the bombers carrying multiple AShCMs before they launch but still able to engage the missiles as well. Then the big long range SAMs like Talos or SM6 engage whatever gets past the fighters. Then SM2s engage whatever gets past the SM6s, and engage whatever they missed the first round. Now it's time for ESSMs to take a swing at whatever got past the fighters, at least one volley of SM6s, and 2 volleys of SM2s. ESSMs only have time for one volley before it's time for RAM to be engaging. RAM only has time for one shot before CIWS is up.

"You only need to get 2 missiles to the ship to overwhelm CIWS!"

Sure, that's technically true, CIWS mounts have limited ready ammunition onboard.

But let's run the math on just how many missiles that takes, assuming a 0.5 Pk for each layer:

2 missiles for CIWS.​

4 missiles for RAM.​

8 missiles for ESSM.​

32 missiles for two volleys of SM2s.​

64 missiles for SM6.​

128 missiles for the fighters.​

So you'd need to send 24 planes each carrying 6 missiles, just to get one ship kill. And remember, the typical carrier group has 7 ships in it: carrier, 2x cruisers, 4x destroyers. Now you need to send 168 planes carrying nearly 900 missiles to kill the entire carrier group.

Navies may have to return to gunned platforms with human eyes and gunners that cannot be electronically fooled. A frigate needs something more akin 10+ .50 caliber machine guns, preferably high rates of fire. And possibly high caliber cannons.

No gun system smaller than 3" will stop a supersonic missile far enough away to prevent the fragments from shredding the antennas etc and mission-killing the ship.

Guided 57mm may have the range for this, 57mm flak does not.

 

[Foo Fighter]

On a tangent, is the terminology obsolete now? We all have an understanding of the terminology dependent on our exposure to the terminology and I cannot see how it fits any requirement now, or in the immediate future.

Time for a new system perhaps so we can stop giving titles to projects which do not fit the terminology as I know it at least.

 

[Scott Kenny]

On a tangent, is the terminology obsolete now? We all have an understanding of the terminology dependent on our exposure to the terminology and I cannot see how it fits any requirement now, or in the immediate future.

Time for a new system perhaps so we can stop giving titles to projects which do not fit the terminology as I know it at least.

You mean calling the Trump-class ship a battleship?

Well, yes, the whole "if it's bigger than 10,000tons it's a capital ship" nonsense has been void since 1938.

But the two sizes for "good carrier escort" were ~17,000tons and 30,000 tons.

 

[Foo Fighter]

I mean the term 'Battleship' but just as much for corvette, frigate etc.

Used to be corvettes, frigates and destroyers had a clear anti air or subsurface role because although cruisers were larger than destroyers and on down, role became more important and frigates larger than destroyers etc.

So, what should we call these ships? Simpler with subs for sure.

Trumps 'Battleship' is imho, just a definition of his exposure to military tech as mine are for me.

 

[DJK]

No gun system smaller than 3" will stop a supersonic missile far enough away to prevent the fragments from shredding the antennas etc and mission-killing the ship.

Guided 57mm may have the

Im not sure 76mm has that much more range than 57mm but if guided 57mm projectiles dont happen soon then its definitely worth going back to 76mm. Pretty much has to be Italian rapid guns if you go 76mm for air defence.

Used to be corvettes, frigates and destroyers had a clear anti air or subsurface role because although cruisers were larger than destroyers and on down, role became more important and frigates larger than destroyers etc.

USN tried "small surface combatant" & "large surface combatant" but that was even more generic. I think best solution is to add a functional descriptor for the role, such as GP/AAW/BMD destroyer, or GP/ASW frigate. Then we get to imagine what sort of ship is behind the name.

 

[spikedpsycho]

Concur, the various US v China wargames have seen any grouping of ships getting mugged by AShBMs and hypersonics, which means that lone ships must have enough firepower to protect themselves and a logistics ship.




The S5W nuclear plant was made in the hundreds for subs, and it meets most of the SMR definitions. Only makes about 20MWe if you bolt the main engines to electrical generators (15,000hp plus whatever the ship service TGs made)

And I still struggle to see how any Navy is going to accept a virtually unmanned reactor for service.



The USN first faced swarms of antiship missiles in WW2. We called them Kamikazes, and the guidance system for those missiles was a person willing to trade his life for the life of an entire ship. What the USN learned in WW2 was that 20mm and 40mm AA guns would not stop a Kamikaze in the terminal dive, they needed AA guns that would take down the kamikaze before it could kinematically reach the ship. Hence the 3"/50 automatics replacing Bofors 40mm. Two twin 3" mounts would replace 3 quad Bofors.

And yes, the CIWS systems work well enough when there are only a couple of leakers past all the layers of SAMs and even fighters in the Outer Air Battle.

Fighters are operating 200+nmi away from the carrier group, with the goal of shooting down the bombers carrying multiple AShCMs before they launch but still able to engage the missiles as well. Then the big long range SAMs like Talos or SM6 engage whatever gets past the fighters. Then SM2s engage whatever gets past the SM6s, and engage whatever they missed the first round. Now it's time for ESSMs to take a swing at whatever got past the fighters, at least one volley of SM6s, and 2 volleys of SM2s. ESSMs only have time for one volley before it's time for RAM to be engaging. RAM only has time for one shot before CIWS is up.

"You only need to get 2 missiles to the ship to overwhelm CIWS!"

Sure, that's technically true, CIWS mounts have limited ready ammunition onboard.

But let's run the math on just how many missiles that takes, assuming a 0.5 Pk for each layer:

2 missiles for CIWS.​

4 missiles for RAM.​

8 missiles for ESSM.​

32 missiles for two volleys of SM2s.​

64 missiles for SM6.​

128 missiles for the fighters.​

So you'd need to send 24 planes each carrying 6 missiles, just to get one ship kill. And remember, the typical carrier group has 7 ships in it: carrier, 2x cruisers, 4x destroyers. Now you need to send 168 planes carrying nearly 900 missiles to kill the entire carrier group.



No gun system smaller than 3" will stop a supersonic missile far enough away to prevent the fragments from shredding the antennas etc and mission-killing the ship.

Guided 57mm may have the range for this, 57mm flak does not.

Nuclear/Ship or land isn't prerequisite. That architecture shifts risk into manufacturing & compresses timelines. Rather than building the hardest part on site you are simply installing it in 24-36 months. Nuclear does not behave this way, naval reactors do. It can incorporate modular components, but the NSSS is only 25-40% of cost. The dominant cost drivers sit elsewhere. Labor costs weren't the issue with nuclear surface ships, but keeping running as escort duty and reduced manpower costs. No will fully "Automate them" But vastly reduced labor costs don't stem current reactor technology of pressurized steam.
Gas cooled/Heat pipe reactor offer better advantage if utilized.

 

[Dtrip_Tanker]

Describe what you think a modern battleship would look like and what sensors it would have and what it would be armed with

A 45,000/55,000 long ton, around 850-900 foot dreadnought carrying twelve 10-16 inch guns, maybe 10 inch high power LRLAP shells similar to the special shells on the USS Zumwalt, but maybe a little less complicated. Maybe 16 inch regular shells because they were pretty deadly anyways. Missiles would be around 10 ASROC anti-submarine missiles, around 30-40 RIM-66 surface to air missiles, and possibly around 2-4 Tomahawk cruise missiles or Harpoon anti ship missiles. Powered by one A1B nuclear pressurized water reactor, along with 2 backup General Electric geared steam turbines. Sensors would consist of an AN/SPY-3 Multi-Function Radar similar to the USS Zumwalt again, an EO/IR suite for passive surveillance, and a trailing AN/SQR-20 Multi-Function Towed Array for submarine detection. The boat is essentially what the USS Zumwalt was originally planned for, basically anti everything. The guns of course would be bigger, but the ship is supposed to be a combination of the USS Zumwalt, Ticonderoga, and Missouri. Edit: this ship would be very expensive to produce so more than one is unlikely.